Georgia Sheds Light On The Definition Of La Pierre’s Words Of A “Good Guy With A Gun”

The president of the NRA has famously said “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Let us say for just one minute that he is correct. The next question is then who constitutes being a “good guy?” In most circumstances of criminal activity, most people would say that the police are supposed to be the good guys.

He also has said that criminals should not be allowed to own firearms. That is something that most reasonable people would agree with. So, to sum it up simply, only “good guys” without criminal records should be allowed to own firearms in the U.S. I believe that is a fair analysis of Mr. La Pierre’s stance.

Then there are the “open carry” groups around the country toting their guns everywhere the go. They argue that people should not be afraid of “law-abiding citizens carrying guns.” According to them, everyone you see openly carrying a gun is a “law-abiding citizen” and you have nothing to fear from them.

That brings us to a small very underreported story in Georgia. Being that Second Amendment Rights state that it is, they recently approved the “stand your ground” laws to allow people to carry firearms into airports, libraries, churches, and nightclubs. Now they have gone one step further in the Dennis Kraus affair.

For a little background, Krauss, an ex-cop who was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman in 1999, regained his gun rights — despite the fact that he initially attempted to rape the woman with his gun! Ian Millhiser at Think Progress Explains:

According to the record in Krauss’ trial, the former officer was dispatched to the home of a woman who called 911 alleging that her husband had hit her. Rather than arresting the husband, however, Krauss asked the victim to ride with him in his police car. Once she was in his car, “Krauss told the victim that he could take her to jail if he wanted to” or, if she did not want to be arrested, she could have sex with him instead. Krauss’ words, according to the court opinion, were “[w]e can go to the motel or you can go to jail.”

At the motel, Krauss drew his service weapon and told the woman that he wanted to anally penetrate her with the gun. When she refused, and began to cry, “Krauss then pushed her back, pulled off her pants, and had sex with her.” And then he drove her home to the same husband that led her to call the police in the first place.

In addition to his conviction for sexual assault, Krauss was also charged with several other instances of harassment or disturbing physical violence, including beating a prisoner “so severely the man’s brain bled” and threatening to file false charges against another man in order to have sex with his wife, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. But neither those allegations nor his sexual assault conviction have permanently prevented Krauss from owning firearms; he regained that right in 2013.

Kraus isn’t alone in getting his guns back either. The state has reinstituted gun ownership privileges to some 400 convicted felons. Included in those numbers 44 had committed sex crimes and 32 had killed another person. Whether those crimes were committed with firearms is not noted, but it also is not relevant. Murder is murder regardless of how you killed someone.

Which brings us back to La Pierre and the “Open Carry” groups around the country. Who constitutes a “good guy with a gun?” According to Georgia, Kraus and the other violent convicted criminals apparently are considered “good guys with a gun.” If these people fall under your definition, I would hate to see what a “bad guy with a gun” is all about. We can thank Georgia for having the foresight to shed light on the utter stupidity of how states define “a good guy with a gun.” Without their bravery, this definition would never have come to light.

But then, Georgia must be correct in their actions. Mr. La Pierre and the Open Carry groups have been absolutely mute about this situation. It can be construed, in this case, that silence from them means they agree with the rulings.